Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff
v.
Introduction 1
Facts 1
I. This Court Should Reject Any Attempt by Amicus to Turn This Court into a “Ministry of
Truth” 2
Conclusion 7
ii
CASES
Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., 151 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 1998) 5
Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 638 (2nd Cir. 1975) 4
Draego v. City of Charlottesville, No. 3:16-CV-00057 (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2016) 4
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., NO. 403868V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2016) 4
18 U.S.C. § 1512 6
WEBSITES
John F. Kennedy, Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America, THE AMERICAN
PRESIDENCY PROJECT, Feb. 26, 1962, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9075 (last visited
April 12, 2018) 3
iii
As a preliminary matter, this brief responds solely to the arguments presented in the “Brief
of First Amendment and Media Law Scholars” (Dkt. 75-1) (the “Defamation Amicus”). That
Amicus addresses only the issue of whether the Plaintiff has properly pled Defamation.
Furthermore, Mr. Hoft, Mr. Stranahan, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Wilburn, Ms. Hickford and Words-N-
Ideas, LLC (the “Undersigned Defendants”) do not waive any rights of jurisdiction, notice,
For the most part, the Defamation Amicus makes the same arguments—and the same
mistakes—as the Plaintiff, and this Reply will mostly rely on the arguments made in the “Brief in
Support of the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs of Defendants
Hoft, Creighton, Stranahan, Wilburn, Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC” (Dkt. 47) (the “MTD”)
as well as the “Brief in Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Defendants Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton, Wilburn, Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC” (the “Reply
to the Plaintiff”) (Dkt. 91) to rebut the arguments in the Defamation Amicus.
However, this Reply will rebut three arguments the Defamation Amicus makes that the
Plaintiff does not. First, this Court should reject the Defamation Amicus’ suggestion that it can or
should serve a “Ministry of Truth” function. Second, this Court should reject the Defamation
Amicus’ claim that “opinion itself is no defense.” Third, this Court should reject the Defamation
Amicus’ arguments that the Plaintiff is not a limited-purpose public figure. Otherwise, to the extent
that this brief is silent about other arguments raised by the Defamation Amicus, it is because they
FACTS
This brief incorporates the Statement of Facts provided in the “MTD” 2-7 and the
Mr. Creighton, Mr. Wilburn, Ms. Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC” (Dkt. 86) (“Reply to
Amicus”) 1-2.
I.
THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT ANY ATTEMPT BY AMICUS TO TURN THIS
COURT INTO A “MINISTRY OF TRUTH”
The first unique argument found in the Defamation Amicus to be rebutted is the suggestion
that this Court is (or should become) a “Ministry of Truth.” The Defamation Amicus attempts to
wax poetic regarding the importance of defamation law not only for its narrow purpose in
protecting reputations, but also in protecting the common people from falsehoods. Their theory is
In short, the Amici hope that the Federal Courts can help sort out truth from lies for the benefit of
the American people. Otherwise, ordinary people might have to figure out what information is
However, the idea that the courts can (or should) be general clearinghouses for truth is at
odds with what the Supreme Court has said about Freedom of Expression. As stated in U.S. v.
Alvarez, 567 U. S. 709, 718 (2012) (a.k.a. the “stolen valor case”), there is no “general exception
to the First Amendment for false statements.” Instead of allowing the courts or any other part of
the government to be general clearinghouses for determining truth or falsity, “Our constitutional
tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. See G. Orwell,
can be punished, civilly and criminally, but only if the false statement also causes one of a few
narrow forms of harm. This is because our founders believed that the first and best defense against
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, “presupposes that right
conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than
through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be,
folly; but we have staked upon it our all.”
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Or as President Kennedy put it: 2
We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national
boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to
entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien
philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people
judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its
people.
Put simply, by saying they wish this Court to become a free-roaming arbiter of truth, the Amici
have declared they do not believe in the wisdom of the people and that they stand in opposition to
Their argument also ignores how causes of action based on falsehoods work. Defamation,
fraud, and false light are the primary torts concerned with falsehoods and each has stringent
standards for pleading and proving a case. There are a great number of falsehoods that as a matter
of law cannot be punished. For instance, a number of courts have found that certain individuals
cannot validly sue for defamation because their reputations are so poor it can no longer be harmed
1
It is worth noting that all the flowery, scholarly language supporting the notion that this Court
should serve a “Ministry of Truth” function comes from articles written well before Alvarez.
2
John F. Kennedy, Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America, THE AMERICAN
PRESIDENCY PROJECT, Feb. 26, 1962, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9075 (last visited
April 12, 2018).
3
defamation cannot be prohibited without offending the First Amendment. Draego v. City of
Charlottesville, No. 3:16-CV-00057 (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2016). These are only two examples of
the myriad ways in which one person can make a false statement about another or even millions
Even when a proper cause of action would lie arising from false statements in theory, one
needs a plaintiff with the means and wherewithal to pursue the case, and (typically) a competent
lawyer. Many lawyers and plaintiffs will refuse to pursue the matter unless the economics of the
situation are extremely favorable—either the risk is uniquely low or the reward is uniquely high.
Thus, very few people sue for defamation just to be “exonerated.” In that light, this Court simply
cannot be the arbiter of truth on the majority of instances where a falsehood is stated, and,
Indeed, if the courts were recruited to ferret out every falsehood on the Internet, one would
kiss docket control goodbye. Even if the number of courts and judges were to triple in number, the
backlog would be staggering. It would be a bit like trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a
teaspoon—a task so staggeringly difficult it is a waste of time to attempt it. For this additional
3
See, e.g., Jackson v. Longscope, 394 Mass. 577 (1985) (serial killer and rapist who perpetrated
“the hitch-hike murders” was defamation-proof); Ray v. Time, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 618 (W.D. Tenn.
1976) (applying the defamation-proof doctrine the murderer of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., NO. 403868V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2016) (a serial
bomber known as the “Speedway Bomber” was defamation-proof). As stated in Cardillo v.
Doubleday & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 638, 639 (2nd Cir. 1975):
we consider as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-
proof, i. e., so unlikely by virtue of his life as a habitual criminal to be able to
recover anything other than nominal damages as to warrant dismissal of the case,
involving as it does First Amendment considerations.
4
of Truth” function, but it is also actually impossible for the courts to do so. Accordingly, this Court
should reject the Defamation Amicus’ argument that this Court should assume a “Ministry of
Truth” function.
II.
OPINION IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CLAIM OF DEFAMATION
The second unique argument that the Defamation Amicus makes that must be rebutted is
the claim that “opinion itself is no defense,” id. at 7. As the Supreme Court said in Gertz v. Robert
We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment there is no such
thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its
correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other
ideas.
While opinions can be actionable if they declare or imply untrue facts, Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes,
Inc., 151 F.3d 180, 184 (4th Cir. 1998), outside of that exception,4 a statement of opinion is
absolutely protected speech. It is truly stunning that what the Supreme Court believed was
III.
THE PLAINTIFF IS A LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE
A point of contention between the Plaintiff and the “Undersigned Defendants” is whether
First, the Defamation Amicus argues that the Plaintiff does not have access to effective
channels of communication. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff does not dispute this point and,
therefore, the Plaintiff has waived this argument. Even if the Plaintiff hadn’t waived it, the facts
4
Like with the arguments of the Plaintiff, the Defamation Amicus has failed to show that this
exception applies to the instant facts.
5
Specifically, the Tweet the Plaintiff posted containing the video of the horrific car attack was
retweeted over 80,000 times and liked more than 100,000 times. See MTD 62. Further, the Plaintiff
has spoken with multiple television news networks and other news media, including the New York
Second, the Defamation Amicus makes an argument when claiming that “Mr. Gilmore did
not seek to influence events” that deserves to be addressed separately. The Plaintiff did not simply
report what he saw. If his only purpose in tweeting out video of the car attack, then the Tweet
would only have said something such as, “Here is footage I took of the car attack on August 12,”
whether the attack was deliberate or not, to assert that it was terrorism, 5 and to label his side of the
protest “anti-racist”—implying that every person who supported leaving Lee’s statute in place was
necessarily a racist. In these ways, the Plaintiff was plainly trying to influence events.
Finally, the Defamation Amicus claims a ruling that the Plaintiff is a public figure will
discourage others from coming forward. First, the Plaintiff could have simply contacted the police
and turned over his evidence without putting his video out into the world. The Plaintiff might not
have done anything wrong by tweeting out video of the attack, but that does not change the fact
that his conduct is part of what rendered him a limited-purpose public figure. Furthermore, both
the U.S. Congress and the Virginia Assembly have formulated protections for witnesses to crimes, 6
and none of them include silencing protected expression. This Court should not substitute its own
5
The fact that others agree with the Plaintiff, or even that this Court might agree that the attack
was terrorism, does not change the fact that the Plaintiff was expressing an opinion that went
beyond simply reporting on events.
6
See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and VA. CODE § 18.2-460.
6
Further, to the extent that the Defamation Amicus believes it is appropriate to suppress the
speech of the Undersigned Defendants in order to encourage people who witness events to tell
their story to the media, that is contrary to the First Amendment. As stated in Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1976), “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements
of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First
Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 349 (2010) (citing Buckley). Simply put, the law of defamation cannot be
interpreted to suppress speech about certain speakers because the courts like what he or she is
saying. It is truly stunning that the Defamation Amicus would argue that this Court should engage
in such blatant content and/or viewpoint discrimination. See RAV v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 384
and 391 (1992) (striking down an ordinance because it represents content and viewpoint
discrimination). See also Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 326 (“Courts... are bound by the First
Amendment”).
Apart from this, the Defamation Amicus’ arguments with respect to whether the Plaintiff
is a public figure is adequately answered in the MTD or the Reply to Plaintiff, and this brief will
CONCLUSION
The Defamation Amicus makes three unique points deserving rebuttal. First, it is
wrongheaded to argue that this Court can (or should) become a “Ministry of Truth”—in direct
contradiction of what the Supreme Court stated in U.S. v. Alvarez. Second, the Defamation Amicus
incredibly argues that there is no protection for the expression of opinions in defamation law.
Finally, the Defamation Amicus claims that the Plaintiff was not a limited-purpose public figure
him and by advocating for content and/or viewpoint discrimination. For all of those reasons, as
well as the reasons stated in the MTD and the Reply to Plaintiff, the Defamation Amicus has failed
to demonstrate that the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect
to defamation.
s/ Aaron J. Walker
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton,
Wilburn, Hickford and WNI
Va. Bar# 48882
7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW72@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on July 10, 2018. All participants in the
case will be served automatically.
s/ Aaron J. Walker